Another interesting analysis where the stats accord with what is obvious from "unscientific" observation. What surprised, though, me was the sheer size of the gulf between Australia (81.4%) and second placed England (55.3%) in the 70s. Pitches alone can't possibly account for this difference; mentality (playing for the victory rather than safety first) must take some of the credit.

There was a time when a draw was considered a win even by home teams. I am amazed at the change in England.
Ananth

I agree that the West Indies figure is understandable due to weaker teams in recent times and that India's should be higher. I do think India sometimes plays too defensively so they can protect a series result. For example I was really looking forward to last test series where Aus toured India (especially after the previous series), then the 8-1 fields Dhoni set kinda killed it for me. India won 2-0 (out of 4 matches) but it could've easily been 1-0 if Aus had been less aggressive in the 2nd inns of the final match.

India has to prepare the Eden Gardens type of pitches and do well in those. Then only can they travel well. I would be the happiest guy if I do not see the Kanpur of 2008 or Mumbai 2004 pitch ever again.
Ananth

David
you seem to have joined the previously incomparable trinity of xolile/alex/unni in making very insightful observations not easily noticed by the vast majority like us!

yes, indeed, "mentality" would definitely be a prime reason for a higher percentage of match results -but unfortunately it cannot be quantified.

Abhi
You are being quite modest since you have also made quite a few meaninghful observationa.
Ananth

Ananth,
perhaps we can get a handle on "mentality" if we consider match results of various teams in the different countries?

That is quite easily done. However in the presentation that I am going to find it difficult. It is re ally a matrix. Let me see.
Ananth

Whether a venue (and by extension a country) is more result-oriented than another depends on at least three factors: Pitches, Aggressivenees/mentality of the bowlers and the quality of the bowlers.

Some Australian grounds are flatter than many in the subcontinent, prime example being Adelaide Oval. If two subcontinental teams played each other on Adelaide 95% of the time it will be drawn. When Australia plays however, with their aggressive field placings and quality of bowlers, still manage to get a result most of the time (although recently it is becoming harder without Warne and McGrath).

Gizza
What you say makes a lot of sense. I should do a matrix analysis of Teams/Countries.
Australia forces teams to raise their games. Good teams like India/Saf end of doing well and even West Indies, sorry no offence, played above their abysmal levels. One cannot go there thinking to play safely.
Hats off the Eden Gardens curator for withstanding the pressure and produce a great cricket wicket. I wish more Indian pitches are like that. There was always a fair contest between bat and ball. The Indian high score was achieved through good batting, supported by an unusual poor South African fielding display.
Ananth

Gizza
Right of course. Who used to say(Crowe?) that there are only 3 things certain in life : "Death,Taxes and a Hundred at the Adelaide Oval."

So obviously the 3 factors on which match results depend upon are Pitch quality, Team mentality, and Team strength(relative)...Difficult to pin point the exact percentages of each.

Pitch quality needs a bit more clarity. All of us say that a good one has something for batsmen and bowlers. What drives that? Is it bounce? Australian & SA wickets offer more bounce and would that be the standard? English & NZ conditions offer more movement in the air and hence can aid swing bowlers. Not sure whether these conditions can be replicated in other places. Assuming soil plays a big part, how do we make Indian wickets "true" ? Are the low and slow bounce wickets not suitable for results? A bit more study is reqd in this area. I would feel bored if all wickets are same like astroturf hockey surface. Science needs to help prepare a local pitch variety which offers purchase for both batsmen and bowlers.
I also feel that Batsmen oriented teams like India tend to produce more draws. You need international class bowlers to get results esp in First innings.

Ramesh
I was only contrasting Eden Gardens and some other earlier Indian pitches. I am sure there would be sufficient variations, subtle in some cases, which would make each pitch unique.
My definition of a good sporting pitch is one with 90% possibility of result through good to great bowling efforts. Back-to-the-wall efforts can still produce a few wonderful draws, as Eden nearly did.
What I hate are pitches on which 95% of the Satta money offered is on a draw. Eden always offered the bowlers a chance. 200 for 1 did not automatically translate to 600 for 5. The Indian bowlers did bow really well before and after tea on the first day.
I agree piihes are an integral part of Cricket. However as you can see in tennis, there are enough variations in the courts to test the players' skills.
Ananth

Abhi, I've been pondering to what extent relative team strength is or isn't relevant to the analysis Ananth has given us. That is, he's asking the question simply about which countries produce the most results, not what result is produced (victory or loss). So if it's Ind v Zim, there should be a result regardless of where the match is held. Therefore, the figures in Ananth's tables could only be skewed if one country played a sufficiently high proportion of its home tests either against similarly strong opposition (leading to fewer results) or against vastly different-strength opposition (leading to more results). Breaking the data into decades, as Ananth has done, should minimise that skewing effect, and therefore relative team strength loses a lot of its relevance. The 80s are a case in point: while the dominant WI team had a relatively high score (63.3%), that score is very similar to WI in the 00s (60.8%), and LOWER than AUS in the 80s (63.6%) - two very average teams

David
That was the very essence of my analysis. However a matrix will let the readers get more insights whether the metrix is read in a vertical or horizontal manner.
Ananth

I think SA pitches are the best ones around. I don't agree with concept of pitches good for batting for 3 days and then breaking up to make batting tough (eg: Kolkata, Sydney). It should be a constant battle between bat and bowl, where any day is capable of producing atleast 250-350 runs and 5-10 wickets (more if teams bowl well or bat poorly)

DK
I agree with you. All five days should be an equal contest between bat and ball. I am surprised to see that you have not considered Kolkatta as a good pitch. A few more minutes by any batsman and South Africa would have saved the match.
And Indian score of 600+ was at least 25% due to South Africa's unusually poor fielding. If they had restricted India to 400nor so, they would have had a fighting chance.
Ananth

Great Analysis Ananth. It would good to take the weather factor out of the draws and see if India improves. I remember quite a bit of time lost in Indian matches due to bad weather, most famously the 2004 Ind-Aus Chennai match. One in which Jason Gillespie established himself as the best lower order batsman (also analysed by you).
Thanks
Ravi.

I would venture to say that the type of pitch laid is part of the home team's "tactics" perhaps. Through the 50s/60s when India played, the primary purpose was not to lose the game and this was an "achievement" when playing stronger teams (Aus/Eng/WI esp). Later, during late 70s/early 80s Gavaskar was criticized for being too defensive a captain and I believe he said his first duty was to the team so that they don't lose ! Not surprisingly, even against Packer-weakened Australia and WI teams Gavaskar-led India drew most of the matches played at home. Surely, that psychology must be reflected in the type of the pitches laid. Not surprisingly, thru the years the Indian domestic scene is one major run riot more often than not. One would think that as India have gotten stronger over the last few years, a la Aus/SA more sporting wickets are produced. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening too often.

"However it must be mentioned that quite a few results there (NZ) are the result of diabolic poor quality pitches, especially during thge early-2000s."
Are you talking about 2 green wickets ordered by NZ Cricket when India toured? Around that series were some of the fastest, bounciest pitches NZ has produced.
[[
Sam
Fast and bouncy pitches should allow teams to score 300+ and win matches. Not first innings scores of 100. I am equally critical about Indian pitches like the Mumbai one agsinst Australia or Kanpur one against South Africa last year.
Ananth:
]]